Posted on 05/14/2003 10:49:29 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
News Stories
Cannibalism Normal for Early Humans?
Neandertals Had Highly Capable Hands, Study Says
Did Neandertals Lack Smarts to Survive?
Java Skull Raises Questions on Human Family Tree
First Humans in Australia Dated to 50,000 Years Ago
1.8 Million-Year-Old Hominid Jaw Found
When Did "Modern" Behavior Emerge in Humans?
Documentary Redraws Human's Family Tree
Fossil Implies Our Early Kin Lived in Trees, Study Says
Controversy Over Famed Ancient Skull: Ape or Human?
Skull Fossil Opens Window Into Early Period of Human Origins
Skull Fossil Challenges Out-of-Africa Theory
New Study Supports Idea That Primates, Dinosaurs Coexisted
Human Fossil Adds Fuel to Evolution Debate
Did Our Species Mate With Other Human Species?
Did Humans and Neandertals Battle for Control of the Middle East?
Killer Cats Hunted Human Ancestors
Adolescence Came Late in Human Evolution, Study Shows
Viewpoint: Is It Time to Revise the System of Scientific Naming?
African Bone Tools Dispute Key Idea About Human Evolution
Africa's Imperiled Rock Art Documented Before it Disappears
Bones, Tools Push Back Human Settlement in Arctic Region
Oldest Asian Tools Show Early Human Tolerance of Variable Climate
Telltale Face Betrays Neandertals as Non-Human
Fossils From Ethiopia May Be Earliest Human Ancestor
New Face Added to Humankind's Family Tree
Meanwhile, us God-fearing folk will continue celebrating that we were "fearfully and wonderfully" made by a Creator.
They're here. Today we call them DemocRATs. (e.g.: Klintons, Ellen Goodman, Teddy Kennedy, Robert Byrd-Brain, etc. etc. etc. etc.)
They were wearing berets.
Better check your sources. Carbon dating is good for only about 40,000 years. After that the remaining amounts of radioactive carbon become too small to measure. With some very sophisticated measuring equipment, maybe 50-60,000 years BP. Hence C14 dating for remains hundreds of thousand of years old is not possible. Other dating techniques for older fossils do not involve carbon.
Doesn't that make the entire theory of evolution very unlikely? In other words, if we're not descended from neanderthals, then from what? Neanderthals and homo sapiens are the two basic species of human-like creatures we have evidence for; everything else is basically apes or ape-like creatures.
Oh really? And how do you come to that conclusion?
This is hardly unique. Bonbos and Chimpanzees are the closest living relatives to humans. These great apes are virtually identical. However, Chimps are more competitive and will hunt for food. The Bonobos preffer a pure cegitarian diet and have a society built of sexual relations. Bonobos are dying out. Chimps survive.
They also sound a lot like the French!
One lecture I remember was about Neanderthal Man. The witticism tossed out by the lecturer stays with me today: "If a Neanderthal man were with us today, I suppose he would look just like Fred Flintstone."
Really? On a scale of one to ten with an ape being one and a human ten, the neanderthal would be about a nine, while home erectus would be about a six or a seven. If we can't be descended from neanderthals because they're too apelike, how are we descended from homo erectus which is even more apelike? Or did you think home erectus was just some gay guy with a hard on???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.